A Critical Look at the Standard Cosmological Picture by Daryl Janzen

Hi Daryl,

Thanks for your excellent reply to my comments. You've given me much to think about and much to read (and re-read). Unfortunately, I'm not a speed reader, especially not of PhD dissertations. Will be busy reading and thinking for a while before getting back to you. Please keep a light on for me. Okay? Thanks again!

Best,

jcns

Dear Daryl:

Thanks for the clarification, and we seem to be converging on the real issue with the standard model assumptions and use of different than expected empirical parameters to fit the data without any real physical and mechanistic physics proposed for the Cosmological Constant - viz. Lamda. The reason for positive Lamda presumably justifies the presumed Dark Energy but no physics of dark energy as to where it comes from and what it constitutes is lacking.

What I am trying to clarify is that the root cause behind the need in the standard model to adjust for the positive value of Lamda as opposed to the expected zero Lamda, is the presumption of the Cosmic time and use of the linear Hubble model in the far field, which form the basis for the Big Bang and accelerated expansion. The point is that two assumptions (Absolute Cosmic Time and Linear Hubble Expansion in the far field) in the basic axioms of the standard cosmology are fundamentally in violation of relativity theory and hence, need the corrections to the expected Lamda values. The Relativistic Universe Expansion (RUE) model that provides a mechanistic physical model based on relativity theory is shown to naturally predict the observed (so-called accelerated expansion via Supernova) without any extraneous or after-the-fact corrections as needed by the standard model. RUE model does not support a universal Cosmic time but provides a predictive physics-based mechanistic model for the no-zero Lamda.

On the second point, RUE predicts the observed redshifts using relativity theory without exceeding C and without resorting to the need for the unnecessary standard model interpretations i.e. - "...the expansion of maximally symmetric space where comoving observers actually remain always at rest---i.e., at constant spatial coordinates in the metric, through which the photons are moving, causing them to continuously lose energy in transit."

In summary, I agree with your assertion that - " .. a parameter of the standard model that had been presumed to be zero---viz. Lambda---is actually positive". My point is that this extraneous correction to the standard model is needed because of its deficient assumptions of non-relativistic "Cosmic Time" and Linear Hubbble Model in the far-field. My paper shows that other unresolved cosmic paradoxes such as dark energy, dark matter, big bang singularities, multiverses, multi-dimensions may also be mere artifacts of the incorrect assumptions of Cosmic Time and Linear Hubble Expansion (LHE) in the far-field (Please note that LHE works well in the near field expansion). Eliminating the explicit universal time from cosmology theories resolves many of the current paradoxes of the prevailing Cosmic Conundrum.

Sincerely,

Avtar

Dear Paul:

I agree - Time does not occur in physical reality, there is only timing, a measuring system which calibrates rates of change between such realities.

But I do not agree with your statement - "So, de facto, the physically existent event known as Big Bang, occurred at one spatial point at one point in time, assuming it did occur." The Big Bang is always associated with an absolute "MOMENTof the BEGINNING" of time i.e. Time =0 at the moment of Big Bang, which is non-existent since time, as well as space, is only a relative and not an absolute entity. Time's perception varies according to the observer's speed or frame of reference. There is no absolute fixed time or location in the universe to call it a Proper or Cosmic time and place of origin - Big Bang. Hence, the Big bang as strictly defined can never happen and is merely an artifact of the Newtonian mindset.

Sincerely,

Avtar

Dear Daryl and jcns,

A very interesting interchange. JCN says, "humans have come to refer to the changing configurations of the universe as 'the flow of time.' It is ... crucial to recognize ... however, that the changes ... are *not caused by,* and are not in any way a consequence of, the flow of time. Rather, the changes ...*are* the flow of time."

That has sort of been the way I have been thinking, but your very phraseology has caused me to see it in a different perspective. As you know energy and time are conjugate variables, and in the view you [jcns] just espoused, it would be *energy* (or more correctly, "the flow of energy") that is real and time that is emergent. But in the "present as real" perspective, obviously energy is everywhere local, whereas time is global and universal. Therefore there would seem to be a universal 'reality' to time as opposed to merely a handy way of tagging sequential events.

Daryl, I too am working through your wonderfully written dissertation. Wow!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Daryl,

As to ''empirically verified and verifiable theories'', I'm afraid that big bang cosmologists confuse observations with interpretations of observations.

Most physicist seem not to be troubled by the fact that their cherished theories are riddled with contradictions and infinities, at least not so much as to even consider that predictions they arrive at may be wrong because of these problems.

Big bang hypothesis doesn't even offer a beginning of an idea about the origin of all matter and energy created: as it cannot explain the observed isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, nor why, despite gravity between galaxies, its expansion doesn't slow down in time, it is a source of new far-fetched, artificial, ad hoc hypotheses like inflation and dark energy.

I'm afraid that BBC describes a fictitious universe: if these hypotheses seem to paint a consistent picture of our universe, then this isn't because they are true but because they are designed, crafted to fit observations instead of following from first principles, because they are based on the same conceptual error.

This is in contrast to a self-creating universe (see my essay) which has no such problems, no crippling contradictions and infinities.

Anton

Daryl

"Rather, the paradox can be resolved, and the theory reconciled with true becoming, according to the description I've given in section 3 of my essay"

Not so, because your start point, although being that which is almost universally held, is wrong. Simultaneity as per Poincare, and repeated in section 1 1905 is incorrect, as to is its reification into a model of reality known as spacetime. And SR keeps being referred to as something which is different from what Einstein defined it as when he coined the phrase. As this keeps on coming up in many different blogs, I used my blog on my essay to post two explanations of all this (ie it could have been an alternative essay). They are my posts 11/7 19.33 & 13/7 11.24.

Paul

Edwin

Reality keeps re-occurring, differently, That's it. We can identify difference when we are able to compare (ie have more than one). One aspect of difference is the rate at which it occurred (ie irrespective of type). Timing calibrates those rates, ie of themselves. I think, after some extensive examination of the proverbial mulberry bush JCN agrees with this, and in effect probably always did, but expressed it in an ontologically faulty way, ie by not stating that this was a direct function of physical existence, and nothing to do with timing. That being a human measuring system.

Paul

Paul,

You've been doing this for a year or so, plenty of time for you to take a calculus class or two and learn something about continuity. Since you aren't interested in anything but the very simplest concepts--that most five year olds can comprehend--please do me the favor of not spamming my comments. I'm not the least interested.

Thanks,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Edwin

Perhaps you could please explain, with evidence, how "continuity" occurs in physical reality, other than as a sequence, rather than the comment you did make.

I am also not aware that posting a comment on what somebody says is "spamming".

Paul

Good Afternoon Daryl Janzen,

This is an excellent presentation of scientific observations on red shift in spectrum from distance objects. In the context, it is suffice to say, the presumption that the cause of shift is at source and not billions of light years it takes the light to arrive at detector is inherent in mainstream thinking on the nature of this phenomenon.

In PicoPhysics, the explanation of this phenomenon is common with cosmic background radiation and dark matter. It has lot to do with space traversed by light from source to destination. Latest observations where-in mainstream physics has contemplated oscillating universe (Cyclic Model) is also relevant here.

PicoPhysics proposes a steady state model of universe and accounts for all these different set of observations by taking account of all factors namely

1. Path from source to destination

2. Relative speed of source and destination

3. Dark Energy present along the path of travel

4. Uneven directional matter density due to detector location in galaxy

We have started to unfold PicoPhysics to mainstream scientific community. The first effort is the essay on 5-dimensional universe.

May I invite you to review my essay at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1326

I look forward to your comments and rating of the essay.

Thanks & Best Regards,

Vijay Gupta

Daryl,

Your essay begins with:

''The discovery that the Universe is accelerating in its expansion has brought the basic concept of cosmic expansion into question.''

Well, I said ''see my essay'', because I wanted to avoid having to copy the arguments of my essay in your thread why the observed redshift of galaxies doesn't necessarily mean that the universe expands.

What's more, I reject the entire big bang hypothesis, not because of arguments like those of Fred Hoyle c.s., but for a much more fundamental reason: because big bang cosmology in the concept of cosmic time states that the universe lives in a time continuum not of its own making.

The idea that we, in our imagination, can look at the universe from without only holds in a universe where particles, particle properties only are the cause of interactions.

However, if we reject the idea that the universe has been created by some outside intervention, then ours must be a self-creating universe.

If in such universe particles have to create themselves, each other, then particles, particle properties must be as much the product as the source, the cause as the effect of their interactions, of forces between them.

In that case we are not allowed to regard the universe as an object we can, in principle, not in practice, inspect from without, so we simply cannot assert that it expands.

There is a much simpler explanation for the linearity between the redshift of galaxies and their distance.

In contrast to a big bang universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making, a self-creating universe contains and produces all time within, so here we see clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant, which only is possible if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant.

Though you'll object by saying that we see clocks run slower because of the finite light speed, in a self-creating universe the speed of light isn't a velocity but refers to a property of spacetime, which, if you take the trouble to read my essay, is something else entirely.

Anton

All

"Well, I said ''see my essay'', because I wanted to avoid having to copy the arguments of my essay in your thread"

I do agree with the general point being made here. There are some very awkward exchanges taking place, as this becomes more like a beauty contest than a search for facts, and hopefully controversial ones. There is a difference between making a relevant point, but having to refer back for substantiation (or purely by implication referring back), and making an oblique point (or just saying 'well done') in order to market an alternative essay. Posts can only be short. And understandably, people would prefer a discussion which has direct relevance to something they have written to be on their blog, because it inherently looks as if there is interest in their essay.

I might also take the opportunity to express my opinion that I am unhappy rating other people's work, particularly since this has implications. By definition, if one can 'understand' what is being said then unless it tallies with what you have said......we are back to beauty contest, more than assessment by factual validity.

Paul

In my last post I meant to say:

A self-creating universe does NOT live in a time realm of its own making but contains and produces all time within, so here we see clocks showing an earlier time as they are more distant, which only is possible if they (are observed to) run slower as they are more distant, even if they are at rest with respect to the observer.

In such universe we need no mysterious dark energy to explain the observed linear relation between the redshift of galaxies and their distance.

As to the point Paul makes:

For reasons I have set out in my essay, I think big bang cosmology is a waste of time and taxpayer money, so I try to subvert any paper I can find on this subject in this year's essays, not to wage a beauty contest or to fish for readers for my own essay, but mainly to put an end to a completely outdated idea and clear the way for some real progress.

Though I certainly don't intend to offend people working in big bang cosmology or don't respect their good intentions and efforts, I want to break through the habit in this branch in physics which, based on a deeply flawed idea, keeps spawning other hypotheses which, based on the same misconception, necessarily are as flawed.

To me what happens in cosmology here, is comparable to an alien society where the belief that their own planet is at the center of the universe is a truth which under no circumstances is to be relinquished. As a result these alien cosmologists had to dream up an artificial, very complicated scheme which keeps that illusion intact but nevertheless is able to predict motions of stars and galaxies pretty good.

If observations are made which seem to contradict these hypotheses, then they either are in the process of being incorporated into a new hypothesis of processed into a variation of an already existing hypothesis, so what I want to do is break the taboo by showing a how things look like from a different vantage point, where no far-fetched hypotheses have to be thought up to explain observations.

Though in general I agree that physics shouldn't be a playground for philosophy but a domain for statements which can be experimentally tested; some philosophical insights can have a huge impact on physics if they concern the interpretations of observations, even if they aren't experimentally verifiable, like the question whether the speed of light refers to a velocity or to a property of spacetime.

Anton